Talk:James Potter I
Wasent Jamed Potter a Seeker No Chaser Ginny Potter-Weasley 14:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC) :Actually there are references to his playing both positions (much as Ginny played different positions).--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC) ::According to interviews with JK Rowling, he was a Chaser. I've never thought of it before now, but I think he was changed to a Seeker in Movie 1 only so Ron and Hermione could reassure Harry that he would not make a fool of himself on the pitch. Cubs Fan2007 03:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC) :::Just out of curiosity, where exactly in the books does it say James was a keeper? Gwenog Jones 15:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Correction, chaser. Article Name * Just wondering that since Harry's son James' article is now known as James Potter (II), should this article be moved to James Potter (I)? 06:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC) :Perhaps to avoid ambiguity, but Harry's dad had been dead many years before James Potter, II, was born. "James Potter" would be a better name for this article, with a link at the top of the page. See the discussion at Talk:James Potter. Alychne 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC) ::James Potter is a disambiguation page, so the (Sr) is pretty much just there so the Wiki software can handle it. I changed the title of the page to just "James Potter" since he is never known as a Sr or a I. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) ::: I think the "I" and "II" should be used just to differentiate between the pair. Since they are the only "James Potter"s explicitly mentioned in the books, I don't see why it matters how many Jameses there possibly were before James the elder. And the Roman numerals are a lot shorter than "James the elder" and "James the younger." -- Cubs Fan2007 06:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC) JK Rowling said he was a chaser. But in the trophy room it says James Potter was a seeker. Also, in the books, in states that James was well known because he was the seeker of the team, which is normally the most well known player. Either there's been a mistake make somewhere, or he played both positions, the second one I think is more likely. --Lilemzy95 15:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC) :Actually, it doesn't say he was a seeker in the books. The only time he is mentioned as being a Seeker was that one scene in the Philosopher's Stone film. The canon policy of ths wiki says that the movies are canon only so long as they don't contradict the books or JKR's own comments, and JKR said James was a Chaser, - Nick O'Demus 16:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Picture of young James & Sirius Isn't that Matthew Lewis in the background? Would this hint that Frank Longbottom attended Hogwarts roughly in the same years?--[http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Kirochi K''' ''')] (talk) *That's OR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ginerva Potter Jr. (talk • ) }| }|}}. Family If Ginny is/would be his daughter-in-law, does that make the other Weasley kids his in-laws by extension? Cubs Fan2007 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC) :Usually an in-law is just considered as a kid's husband/wife I believe. If you're thinking to extend the family field in the infobox. No, they wouldn't be applicable there. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 02:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC) :: No, I wasn't thinking of extending it; I was just curious. Cubs Fan2007 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC) :::I mean I guess in theory, but I've never really heard of anyone considering their children's significant other's siblings as like in-laws. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Yeah, I've never heard that, either. But like I said, I was just curious; the family connections between Harry and Ginny got me thinking. Cubs Fan2007 00:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Patronus? Where is it said that James could conjure a Patronus in his Animagus-form?--Rodolphus 12:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :I believe it is drawn from a question asked during the Bloomsbury Live Chat: ::''Chely: James patronus is a stag and lilys a doe is that a coincidence? ::''J.K. Rowling: No, the Patronus often mutates to take the image of the love of one's life (because they so often become the 'happy thought' that generates a Patronus).'' :I don't remember James' Patronus ever being revealed. Chely may have confused it with his known Animagus form. But JKR did not contradict Chely, and, in fact, seemed to back up her by explaining how love can influence the form one's Patronus takes. It wouldn't be the first time someone's Animagus form coincided with their Patronus: McGonagall had a cat for both. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 04:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Potter Curse Does either party have any canonical evidence to support this? -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 21:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Head Boy? Since when has James, a notorious troublemaker, been Head Boy? ~ Hermione's Gone Asian 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC) :I really don't know how it happened, but he was a head boy.--Matoro183 (Talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Oka-ay, as long as it's canon and not fanon I'll include it in the article. But if it's not then I'll delete it. ~ Hermione's Gone Asian 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC) It was mentioned in Book One, that Harry's parents were Head Boy and Head Girl by Hagrid. --SilverDrama 02:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, Hagrid says that, but that was early on in the series, and Hagrid was probably either trying to make James seem better than he was, or he got confused because it has been many years, and Lily was Head-Girl. The fact is, Lupin clearly states in the fifth installment that he himself was appointed Prefect for Gyrffindor for that class. James could not have become Head-Boy if he was never a Prefect. And he was too much of a trouble-maker, anyway. James not like Harry James does not look like harry in the movie.:( :That's probably because Adrian Rawlins was cast when Daniel Radcliffe was like 12. Daniel has grown up since then, meaning that his appearance has changed. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 13:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Job I'm actually quite curious - is it ever canonized what James' job is, or is the popular belief that he was an auror simply fanon? ~Kuroi Arashi (might make an account in the distant future... Actually, not likely xd). :JKR said that James didn't actually have a job. He inherited a lot of gold from his parents, so it wasn't necessary for him to work. Instead of working, he and Lily joined the Order of the Phoenix right after Hogwarts, but he was never actually an Auror. Read this interview. - Nick O'Demus 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Seeker James Potter was a seeker not a Chaser. It clearly mentions this in the 1st book when they are in the trophy room In the movies hes a Seeker but in the books hes a Chaser.--Profiteor (Owl Me) 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) :Only in the movie is James mentioned to have been a Seeker. JKR stated that he was a Chaser, and that has higher priority as far as canon is concerned. See the policy page. - Nick O'Demus 14:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC) James was a seeker. it mentions it in the first and fifth books. so obviously JKR said that he was a seeker since se wrote it in the books that James was infact the seeker for the Gryfinndor quidditch team :J.K. Rowling has said he was a Chaser so he was. The books never revealed what position he played, just because he was playing with a snitch in OOTP doesn't mean he was a Seeker. J.K.'s word is law. Jayden Matthews 15:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ::All that's said in books 1 & 5 is that he was a Quidditch player on the house team, not that he was a Seeker. Furthermore, when asked where he got the snitch in book 5, he says "Nicked it" (stole it)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_slang. As Jayden pointed out, JKR specifically said "James was a Chaser"http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm, not "Seeker" or "Chaser and Seeker". The movies are only canon insofar as they do not contradict either the books or JKR's comments. - Nick O'Demus 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)